JIT SINGH Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal. The defendants were the tenants of the land in dispute with the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents. On the 2nd of July, 1953, one Sher Singh executed the document Exhibit P.B. which is witnessed by two of the defendants, Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. There is a recital in this document that the defendants-tenants had given up their tenancy and the land was being leased out to Sher Singh. After the execution of this document, the original owner sold the land to the present respondents. The present respondents brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for possession of the land on the ground that they had been illegally dispossessed by the defendants. Defendants' case was that they were tenants of the land and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction because they bad taken proceedings to acquire ownership of the land under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants were the tenants of the land and had not forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, took the view that the defendants were not the tenants and were trespassers and, therefore, the plaintiffs' suit should be decreed. He accordingly decreed the suit and reversed the decision of the trial Court. Against this decision, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) The only question that requires determination in this appeal is whether the defendants are the tenants of the land in dispute. Normally this would be a question of fact and would not be liable for scrutiny in a second appeal, but what I find is that in the present case there is no evidence whatever so far as the defendants other than Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh are concerned that they ceased to be tenants. They were not parties to the document Exhibit P.B. So far as Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh are concerned, they signed the documents as witnesses. It may be that they were aware of the facts that there was a recital in the document regarding abandonment of the tenancy. However, the fact remains that all the defendants continued to cultivate the land even after the execution of the document Exhibit P.B. as sub-tenants of Sher Singh who was the lessee under Exhibit P.B. and even after the expiry of the lease. In any case so far as defendants, other than Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh are concerned there was no relinquishment by them of their tenancy. There is no evidence excepting Exhibit P.B. on the basis of which it can be stated that the tenants other than Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh had relinquished their tenancy. The only revenue entry which presents some difficulty is that the tenants are recorded in possession in assertion of their right of ownership, but I find from the written statement that the tenants' position was that they were the tenants of the land and not that they were the owners of the land. If the defendants had set up a hostile title, surely an issue with regard to it had to be framed. In this situation it appears to me that there is no evidence on the basis of, which the lower appellate Court could come to the conclusion that the tenants other than Jit Singh and Bakhtawar Singh had either relinquished the tenancy or were not tenants of the land in dispute. As the tenancy is joint, the relinquishment by some of joint tenants will not in any manner jeopardise the interest of the remaining joint tenants. They will continue to be tenants of the entire tenancy, the tenancy being joint and indivisible. The plaintiffs could only succeed if they could show that the defendants were trespassers. That in the circumstances of the present case is not established.

(3.) For reasons recorded above I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court.